Tag Archives: the Vanieken-Ryals case

It is a frightening thought that there may be a percentage of Federal or Postal Federal Disability Retirement applicants who read an initial denial from the Office of Personnel Management, and take their words at face value.

From statements such as, “Your doctor has failed to show that your condition is amenable to further treatments” (by the way, when did the Office of Personnel Management obtain a medical degree or complete a residency requirement?) to “you have not shown that you are totally disabled from performing efficient work” (hint: this is not Social Security, and the standard is not “total disability”), to a full spectrum of error-filled statements in between, one may suspect that there may be a knowing strategy in rendering a denial, knowing that a small percentage of the corpus of disability retirement applicants will simply walk away and not file a Request for Reconsideration.

Further, I suspect that this occurs more often with certain more “vulnerable” medical conditions — Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Major Depression, PTSD, anxiety, panic attacks; Chemical Sensitivity cases, etc. Why do I suspect these? Mostly because such cases are attacked for “lacking objective medical evidence” (see my articles on Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, and similar writings) and failing to provide “diagnostic test results”, etc.

There was a time, long ago, when it used to mean something when someone said, “The Government says…” In this day and age, I would advise that you take it to an attorney to review whether or not the words of the Office of Personnel Management are true or not.

I will be writing an article of greater length on this issue, but suffice it for now that when “the law” works, it works well. A major second case has been decided in favor of the Federal employee — first, it was Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, 508 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and now, Sylvia M. Reilly v. OPM, decided July 15, 2009. Vanieken-Ryals toppled the irrational imposition of a baseless standard by OPM — that there is a distinction to be made between “objective” as opposed to “subjective” evidence concerning medical evidence (example of the absurdity: How do you prove the existence of pain? While an MRI may show a physical condition, you cannot prove that such a physical condition equates to debilitating pain, leaving aside any quantification of pain. Similarly, how do you prove the existence of Major Depression? Anxiety? Panic attacks?).

Now, Reilly v. OPM has toppled another idol of a false standard imposed by OPM: that medical documentation which post-dates separation from Federal Service is near-irrelevant. This has never made sense, for at least 2 reasons: first, since a person is allowed to file for Federal Disability Retirement within 1 year of being separated from service, why would medical documentation dated after the separation be considered irrelevant? Second, medical conditions rarely appear suddenly. Most conditions are progressive and degenerative in nature, and indeed, that is what the Court in Reilly argues. Grant another win for the Federal employee, the law, and the process of law. It makes being a lawyer worthwhile when “the law” works.

Fibromyalgia is one of those medical conditions that the Office of Personnel Management systematically “targets” as a condition which is prima facie “suspect”. This is despite the fact that there are cases which implicitly “admonish” OPM from engaging in the type of arbitrary reasoning of denying a disability retirement application because they “believe” that “no objective medical evidence” has been submitted, or that the “pain” experienced (diffuse as it might be) is merely “subjective”, or that the chronicity of the pain merely “waxes and wanes”, and a host of multiple other unfounded reasonings. Yet, cases have already placed a clear boundary around such arbitrary and capricious reasonings.

A case in point, of course, is Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case, decided on November 26, 2007. In that case, it clearly circumscribes the fact that OPM can no longer make the argument that an Applicant’s disability retirement application contains “insufficient medical evidence” because of its lack of “objective medical evidence”. This is because there is no statute or regulation which “imposes such a requirement” that “objective” medical evidence is required to prove disability. As long as the treating doctor of the disability retirement applicant utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and applies modalities of treatment which are “consistent with ‘generally accepted professional standards'”, then the application is eligible for consideration. Further, the Court went on to state that it is “legal error for either agency (OPM or the MSPB) to reject submitted medical evidence as entitled to no probative weight at all solely because it lacks so-called ‘objective’ measures such as laboratory tests.” Statues are passed for a reason: to be followed by agencies. Judges render decisions for a reason: for agencies to follow. Often, however, agencies lag behind statutes and judicial decisions. It is up the an applicant — and his or her attorney — to make sure that OPM follows the law.

Do Psychiatric Conditions still carry a stigma? Does the Office of Personnel Management, or the Merit Systems Protection Board, treat Psychiatric medical conditions any differently than, say, bulging discs, degenerative disc disease, or carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.? Is there a greater need to explain the symptoms of psychiatric conditions, in preparing an Applicant’s Statement of Disability, than conditions which can be “verified” by diagnostic testing? Obviously, the answer should be: There is no difference of review of the medical condition by OPM or the MSPB.

Certainly, this should be the case in light of Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM. Neither OPM nor an MSPB Judge should be able to impose a requirement in disability retirement cases involving psychiatric disabilities, that there needs to be “objective medical evidence,” precisely because there is no statute or regulation governing disability retirement which imposes such a requirement that “objective” medical evidence is required to prove disability. As I stated in previous articles, as long as the treating doctor of the disability retirement applicant utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and applies modalities of treatment which are “consistent with generally accepted professional standards,” the evidence presented concerning psychiatric disabilities should not be treated any differently than that of physical disabilities.

As the Court in Vanieken-Ryals stated, OPM’s adherence to a rule which systematically demands medical evidence of an “objective” nature and refuses to consider “subjective” medical evidence, is “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.” Yet, when preparing the Applicant’s Statement of Disability, it is always wise to utilize greater descriptive terms. For, when dealing with medical conditions such as Bipolar disorder, Major Depression, panic attacks, anxiety, etc., one must use appropriate adjectives and “triggering”, emotional terms — if only to help the OPM representative or the Administrative Judge understand the human side of the story.

Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 26, 2007, has an interesting statement from the deciding Judge, which can be used as “firepower” for anyone who is attempting to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits (note of caution: for lay non-attorneys, be careful in how you use it in trying to convince a lay, non-attorney OPM representative): “In addition, neither the MSPB nor OPM discussed the content of Dr. [ ] or [ ] evidence in any meaningful way, which further demonstrates that it was not properly considered. OPM, for example, resorted to a laundry list of “objective” tests and documents that the medical evidence did not contain rather than examining the evidence and evaluating what it did contain.”

Interpretation: If OPM’s argument is to focus upon what is missing, they have violated their primary Agency/administrative responsibility — that of evaluating, in some “meaningful” manner, the medical evidence which was in fact submitted. This can be used effectively for the Reconsideration Stage by diplomatically pointing out the error of OPM, and citing Vanieken-Ryals, and highlighting the relevant portions of the medical documentation previously submitted.

At each state of attempting to get a Federal disability retirement application approved, it is important to “remember the details”. For example, at the Merit Systems Protection Board level, in conducting a Hearing, remember that if the best medical evidence/testimony you are able to provide is through a health professional other than an “M.D.” (e.g., a Therapist, a Nurse Practitioner, a Chiropractor, etc.), always point out the unique credentials of the provider, to include whether in the particular state in which he/she practices, if greater latitude and responsibilities are given to the practitioner.

Thus, it may be that in one state a Nurse Practitioner can exam, diagnose, and prescribe a medication regimen without the direct oversight of a medical doctor, whereas in other states such latitude may not be allowed. This should be pointed out to the Judge, to emphasize greater credibility of the testimony of the practitioner.

Further, remember that in Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, November, 2007), the Court therein reiterated that the medical documentation/evidence required must come from a ‘licensed physician or other appropriate practitioner’, and so long as that medical practitioner utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and that which is “consistent with generally accepted professional standards”, the testimony cannot be undermined.

Use the strengths of the case you have, and emphasize the little details that matter.

On my website, www.federaldisabilitylawyer.com, I give a more extensive explanation of a recent and important case impacting federal disability retirement applications, but I think that it is important for everyone filing, or contemplating filing, for disability retirement under FERS or CSRS, to be aware of the recent United States Court of Appeals case for the Federal Circuit, Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, #2006-3260, decided on November 26, 2007, in which it was found that OPM’s adherence to the rule that they will refuse to “consider such medical evidence…for being ‘purely subjective’ is a critical legal error…and clearly prejudicial.”

Often, in cases involving cognitive impairment, psychiatric disabilities, disabilities involving diffuse and chronic pain, and those conditions such as Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, etc. the Federal Circuit Court in Vanieken-Ryals has essentially held that OPM’s adherence to “objective evidence” is “unsupported in the law, was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.”

The Judge therein stated that OPM must consider the medical evidence that is submitted, and cannot attack a medical condition unless there is a doubt as to the “credentials or veracity [of the doctor],” and this is especially true where the doctor has “utilized established diagnostic criteria and [is] consistent with ‘generally accepted professional standards’ ” of medical practice.

This is an important case for Federal disability retirement applicants to use when filing for psychiatric medical disabilities, and for those “hard to define” cases (again, e.g., Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, etc.), because OPM will often declare as a basis for denial that the applicant lacked “objective medical evidence” or that there was no “objective diagnostic tests” showing the medical condition. This is, to use a very well-know legal term, now considered “baloney”. As long as the doctor has applied established diagnostic criteria and generally accepted professional standards, unless OPM can attack the credentials of the doctor, they must consider the medical evidence.

The recent case of Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, decided on November 26, 2007, cannot be overemphasized for its importance to the disability retirement process. It is, in my view, a landmark case which will greatly advance potential disability retirement applicants who base their disabilities upon psychiatric conditions. In representing my clients, I have repeatedly argued that the Office of Personnel Management’s insistence upon “objective medical evidence”, especially when it involves clients who suffer from psychiatric medical conditions (e.g., Major Depression, Anxiety, panic attacks, Bi-Polar Disorder, etc.) is not only unfair, but irrational. My past arguments were met with varying degrees of success, but the essential argument that I made over the years went something like this: Psychiatric disabilities by their inherent nature are “subjective”, because there is no diagnostic test which can objectively determine symptoms of psychiatric disabilities. Indeed, while there are multiple psychological tests which can be administered, the results are still based upon the subjective responses of the patient. Furthermore, a doctor’s clinical examination, long-term evaluation by a treating doctor, and the consistent assessment by one’s treating doctor, provide for the best and most ‘objective’ basis for a valid medical opinion. Further (my argument would often go), even physical disabilities (like a bulging disc) which can be ascertained by an MRI, cannot provide a conclusive basis to determine the extent of one’s pain or inability to perform certain tasks, for pain is by definition a “subjective” condition; there are, indeed, some who have bulging discs but have very little pain, and others who have a minimal bulging disc which completely debilitates the individual. These were rational arguments made, and while fairly persuasive when combined with case-law citations, the force of such arguments often depended upon the receptiveness of OPM’s representative or, at the Merit Systems Protection Board level, the receptiveness of the Administrative Judge.

With the opinion expressed by the Court in Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, we no longer need to rely upon the arbitrary receptiveness of an individual, for we have a firm legal basis to counter the irrational basis that OPM routinely gives in their denials based upon an objective/subjective distinction.

The Court in Vanieken-Ryals made several important declarations in their opinion:

1. That OPM can no longer make the argument that an Applicant’s disability retirement application contains “insufficient medical evidence” because of its lack of “objective medical evidence”, especially when the application is based upon psychiatric medical conditions. This, because there is no statute or regulation which “imposes such a requirement” that “objective” medical evidence is required to prove disability.

2. As long as the treating doctor of the disability retirement applicant utilizes “established diagnostic criteria” and applies modalities of treatment which are “consistent with ‘generally accepted professional standards'”, then the application is eligible for consideration.

3. It is “legal error for either agency (OPM or the MSPB) to reject submitted medical evidence as entitled to no probative weight at all solely because it lacks so-called ‘objective’ measures such as laboratory tests.”

Ultimately, for purposes of this article, which is (hopefully) read by many non-lawyers, the essence of the Vanieken-Ryals case is that it exponentially strengthens a disability retirement application based solely upon psychiatric medical disabilities. The case itself contains many other elements which provide for strong ammunition, when used wisely and with knowledge, for the disability retirement practitioner of law. It makes a strong and unequivocal statement that OPM’s and MSPB’s adherence to a rule which systematically demands for “objective” medical evidence and refuses to consider “subjective” medical evidence, is “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.” This is indeed strong language which can be used as a sword to prevail in a disability retirement case.

Persistence in the pursuit of a client’s right and entitlement to disability retirement benefits is never a lost cause, and those who have hesitated from filing for disability retirement because they suffer from purely psychiatric medical disabilities, or from disabilities which are often harder to “objectively” justify (e.g., Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, etc.) have a greater chance because of the bold legal opinion as expressed by the Court in Vanieken-Ryals.

This is a landmark case of incalculable importance and impact, which cannot be overemphasized. I have already cited the case on numerous occasions at the MSPB level, and the fact that it is a Court of Appeals decision makes it binding upon all MSPB judges. It gives greater hope for those who suffer from Psychiatric Disabilities alone, that their cases will not somehow be looked upon with less chance of approval than a person with a physical medical condition.

Other case updates: While Vanieken-Ryals was not a case that I represented, there are some case-updates from my own files which may be of some interest to my readers. All information provided is already in the public record of the written Opinion of the Judges, and there is no information revealed here that violates my attorney-client confidentiality. I wish that I could claim that I win all of my cases; I cannot. However, it is my firm belief that persistence in the pursuit of a client’s disability retirement application is never a lost cause, and here are three cases which reinforce my philosophy:

1. Tucker v. OPM (DA-844E-07-0314-I-1) The Office of Personnel Management kept denying Ms. Tucker’s disability retirement application. This case was finally won at the Hearing level. However, the Office of Personnel Management filed a Petition for Review. I responded with — among other arguments — the fact that the Office of Personnel Management failed to make any legal arguments showing that the Hearing Judge committed any legal errors. The Full Board rejected OPM’s Petition and affirmed the decision in my favor. No further appeals have been filed. I am happy for my client that after so many years, she will now get her disability retirement. Persistence in rebutting OPM’s attempt to reverse a Hearing Judge’s decision is never a lost cause.

2. Hartsock-Shaw v. OPM (PH-844E-06-0658-I-1) This one is the converse of the previous one, in that the Hearing Judge initially affirmed OPM’s denial of my client’s disability retirement application. I filed a Petition for Review, because I believed the Judge was wrong in not applying the Bruner Presumption in this case. The Full Board vacated the Initial Decision and Remanded the case back to the Hearing Judge, requiring further testimony on the issue of whether the Bruner Presumption should have been applied. We were able to factually prove that the circumstantial evidence necessitated the finding that my client was removed for her medical inability to perform her job, even though there was no final letter of removal issued by the Postal Service that we could find. The Judge sided with us, reversed her prior decision, and granted my client her disability retirement benefits. Persistence paid, and persistence in the pursuit of a disability retirement claim is never a lost cause.

3. Heiter v. OPM (AT-0831-07-0435-I-1) This is an interesting case. It has to do with a client who lost his disability retirement benefits because he tried to go to work for Federal Express. He was being punished for trying. One would think that a disability retirement annuitant would be commended and praised for trying — but, no, because he applied for, got the job with, and then quit, a job with Federal Express, he was deemed to have been ‘less than honest’ for having retired on disability from a Postal Job, and therefore OPM cut off his disability retirement benefits. We went to Hearing on the matter; the doctor testified unequivocally that he couldn’t do the job — neither the Federal Express one nor his prior Postal job — but he couldn’t fault his patient for having tried. OPM made a big deal about the fact that my client periodically went bowling. The Judge ruled in OPM’s favor. I filed a Petition for Full Review. The Board reversed the Initial Decision, and reinstated my client’s disability retirement annuity.

Here again, persistence pays, and persistence in pursuit of a disability claim is never a lost cause.

I am an attorney who specializes in representing Federal and Postal employees to obtain and retain disability retirement benefits. In pursuing one‘s entitlement to disability retirement benefits, one must always take the long-term perspective, and pursue that right with aggressiveness and persistence. It is an investment for one‘s future, and it is important to pursue your future investment aggressively, and to sustain your investment for a long time into the future.

Search this OPM Medical Retirement website

Search

Blogroll

Attorney Profile @ Lawyers.com
The attorney profile of Robert R. McGill, who specializes 100% of his time on Federal Retirement cases only. This page has more information about the law firm, client reviews and other important information.

Federal Disability Retirement Home Page
The home page of Attorney Robert R. McGill, with more medical administrative retirement articles, annuity calculators, statutory and evolving case laws, contact information and much more.